Photographing Fine Art Prints - Why Is It So Bad?

[Anonymous]

Spent some time perusing the ebay site looking at art,fine-art,
prints, etc. Many of the auction photos were obviously taken with a
digital camera. Most of the pictures are awful- splotches,
poor resolution, focus, etc. Is this the best DC's can do? I'm sure
most of the people using them have little technical background,
but it has postponed my decision to purchase a DC until I'm
convinced that photographing paper art is better than what I'm
seeing. Thoughts?

In the interest of avoiding spam, please respond to the newsgroup.

[Martin Brown]

Anonymous wrote:

> Spent some time perusing the ebay site looking at art,fine-art,
> prints, etc. Many of the auction photos were obviously taken with a
> digital camera. Most of the pictures are awful- splotches,
> poor resolution, focus, etc. Is this the best DC's can do? I'm sure

I would not blame the tools for the state of those pictures. A decent
mega pixel DC can make a 5x7 print you would really need to look hard at
to determine whether it was digital or not.

> most of the people using them have little technical background,

And know little about photography - so the alternative of scanned snap &
point film images with muck & thumb prints on would be little better.
Some may even be traditional film images scanned. Compressing for web
display does little to improve image quality.

> but it has postponed my decision to purchase a DC until I'm
> convinced that photographing paper art is better than what I'm
> seeing. Thoughts?

Only real problem I can see is getting even lighting and that applies
independent of whether you use a digital camera or a real film camera.

Regards,
Martin Brown

[Hemi4268]

Hi

Regardless of what people say Photography is a learned Art and Science. The
same sentance could be said for: "I disassembled and reassembled my new Lexus
and now it won't run, I wonder why" or "I pulled my brother's tooth. He yelled
like hell with blood all over the place, I wonder why?" Last, "I photographed
some art work and it looks like hell, I wonder why".

Larry

[Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)]

Hemi4268 wrote in message <19990824122924...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...

How true.

Reproducing "Fine Art Prints" are among the really difficult subjects, like
snow (just snow, not looking like mud), black cats in a coal cellar etc.

Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Oslo, Norway. carn...@online.no

[Robert Barnett]

I can't really help with the photographing of fine art. But, there is a book
out that covers this subject, and much much more. It is from PeachPit Press.
It is called 'Start with a Digital Camera". This is an awesome book that
would be a good choice for anyone that has or is thinking about getting a
digital camera. It is in full color and loaded with lots of good stuff.

Robert

Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999082407...@mail.replay.com...

> Spent some time perusing the ebay site looking at art,fine-art,
> prints, etc. Many of the auction photos were obviously taken with a
> digital camera. Most of the pictures are awful- splotches,
> poor resolution, focus, etc. Is this the best DC's can do? I'm sure

> most of the people using them have little technical background,

> but it has postponed my decision to purchase a DC until I'm
> convinced that photographing paper art is better than what I'm
> seeing. Thoughts?
>

[Anthony]

Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999082407...@mail.replay.com...

> Spent some time perusing the ebay site looking at art,fine-art,
> prints, etc. Many of the auction photos were obviously taken with a
> digital camera. Most of the pictures are awful- splotches,
> poor resolution, focus, etc. Is this the best DC's can do? I'm sure
> most of the people using them have little technical background,
> but it has postponed my decision to purchase a DC until I'm
> convinced that photographing paper art is better than what I'm
> seeing. Thoughts?

Film photos turn out just as bad. It's not the method of image capture,
it's the processing of the image after it has been captured. Most people do
not have the means to properly prepare photos for the Web, and most don't
know how to do it, anyway.

-- Anthony

[Gene F. Rhodes]

When and if this happens I visualize a big lump
attached to the back and bottom of your camera
replacing the camera back. If the ccd is smaller
than 24x36mm all your lenses will be teles.

tim_d...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I read recently of a device which can replace 35
> mm in such cameras and produce digitial images. In
> other words, I imagine, a canister not unlike a
> standard 35 mm package which can turn your
> ordinary 35 mm camera into a digital camera.
>
> Does someone have any information on this product
> and give me a pointer. I have lost the original
> reference in a magazine I read about 3 months ago
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Tim Dalmau
> t...@ozemail.com.au
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

[tim_d...@my-deja.com]

[tim_d...@my-deja.com]

[Mark Ullmann]

You can find an article on Silicon Film's EFilm at Phil Askey's site:

http://photo.askey.net/news/9909/99090501siliconfilm.asp

-- Mark

<tim_d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7rf3fq$3es$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

[Derek Clarke]

In article <7rf3l9$3nr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tim_d...@my-deja.com () wrote:

> I read recently of a device which can replace 35
> mm in such cameras and produce digitial images. In
> other words, I imagine, a canister not unlike a
> standard 35 mm package which can turn your
> ordinary 35 mm camera into a digital camera.
>
> Does someone have any information on this product
> and give me a pointer. I have lost the original
> reference in a magazine I read about 3 months ago

http://www.imagek.com

It's still vapourware though...